US v. Carl Waites, III


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00062-IMK-RWT-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999992579]. [16-4437]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4437 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4437 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARL WAITES, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00062-IMK-RWT-1) Submitted: December 20, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4437 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Carl Waites, III, appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of supervised release and imposing a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment followed by 26 months’ supervised release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Waites was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. “We review a district court's ultimate decision to revoke a defendant's supervised release for abuse of discretion” and its “factual findings underlying a revocation for clear error.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). Waites admitted to the charged violations of his supervised release and noted no objection to any part of the hearing. We discern no error in the district court’s decision to revoke Waites’ supervised release. Moreover, we conclude requirements that of the Fed. district R. Crim. court P. complied 32.1 the conducting in with the revocation hearing. “A district court has broad discretion when sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” v. Webb, sentence 738 F.3d that “is 638, 640 within (4th the Cir. statutory 2 2013). maximum imposing a United States A revocation and is not Appeal: 16-4437 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 plainly unreasonable” will be affirmed on appeal. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In evaluating a revocation sentence, we assess it for reasonableness, utilizing “the procedural and substantive considerations” employed in evaluating an original criminal sentence. (4th Cir. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 2006). reasonable if statements the A revocation district contained in court Chapter sentence has is procedurally considered Seven of the the policy Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). Id. at 439. The district court also must provide an explanation for its chosen sentence, but the explanation “need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a Thompson, 595 sentence is post-conviction F.3d 544, sentence.” 547 substantively (4th Cir. reasonable United 2010). if the States A v. revocation district court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if we find a sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we determine whether the sentence is “plainly” so. Id. at 439. After giving Waites the opportunity to allocute and considering the parties’ arguments and the relevant statutory factors, the district court sentenced Waites within the policy 3 Appeal: 16-4437 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/22/2016 statement range. Pg: 4 of 4 The district court provided an explanation tailored to Waites, focusing on the fact that Waites committed multiple violations supervised than began. release less We two months therefore after conclude his term that of Waites’ sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Waites, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, but review. counsel If Waites believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Waites. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?